Friday, February 16, 2018

Jewgenics

I recently asked if Mormons are alone among sizable population subgroups in the US in experiencing eugenic fertility patterns.

I failed to even evaluate Jews (there go my alt right credentials!). My thought process was the orthodox have lots of kids while secular Jews don't and the former are dullards while the latter have the highest mean IQ in the world. Ergo, Jewish fertility must be dysgenic.

There are limitations inherent in the GSS data on the 2% that make those assumptions difficult to put to the test here. Of the total Jewish survey sample, only 5% identify as orthodox. A plurality identifies as reform with the rest being conservative or "none of these". With only a handful of orthodox responses to work with, they can't be reliably separated out from the rest of the Jewish sample.

There is also the issue of Jewishness as a religion, an ethnicity, or some combination of the two. The survey only asks about Jewishness in the context of religion, not of ethnicity. Consequently, some portion of ethnic Jews surely identified as having no religion rather than as Jewish. Yet a lot of irreligious Jews must also be religiously identifying as Jewish as well, because the survey's contingent of religiously-identified Jews is, much to Isaac's relief, not particularly godly:


That said, among the mostly reform and conservative Jewish sample (n = 449), those with more on the ball make more out of their balls. Their fertility pattern is directionally similar to Mormons, but the Jewish fertility curve is shifted considerably to the left of the LDS one. For good measure, those who indicated they had no religion (n = 3,167) are also included, but only a fraction of this group is ethnically Jewish. To avoid language fluency issues, responses are restricted to those born in the US:


GSS variables used: JEW, RELIG(1)(2)(3)(4)(9), BORN(1), WORDSUM(0-5)(6-7)(8-10), GOD(1-2)(3-5)(6)

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Eugenic Mormons

The following graph compares mean number of children, by intelligence as measured by Wordsum*, among whites (n = 13,492), among blacks (n = 3,858), and also among Mormons (n = 342). To avoid language fluency issues, only those born in the US are considered:


This is astounding. Are Mormons the only group in the US of significant size that breeds today like the English of centuries ago did?

Not only has modern contraception decoupled fornication from procreation, it has also severed the relationship between intelligence and reproduction likely unprecedented in human history.

We rediscover God, we CRISPR into level 99 ubermensches, or we eventually welcome Idiocracy.

Parenthetically, this isn't the only instance that the severe dysgenic trend among American blacks has come up. It's markedly more pronounced than the trends for non-black groups are. Since IQ itself remains a mostly taboo topic, it's no surprise that black dysgenics are never invoked as a potential explanation for worsening levels of black dysfunction over the last couple of generations.

GSS variables used: BORN(1), ETHNIC(7-15,18,19,21,23-27), RACE(2), OTHER(61,64), CHILDS, WORDSUM(0-5)(6-7)(8-10)

* The total population distribution under this classification breaks down as 36%/40%/24% low/middling/high intelligence. This is as close to a 33%/33%/33% split as is attainable given the Wordsum's 10-point scale.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Smear the Episcopalian

Z-Man reads from the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer (DC diocese version):



This is in the context of his pointing out how gay--or more precisely, lesbian--the Anglican offshoot's leadership has become.

The GSS cannot speak about said leadership, but it does allow for a look at the laity. And the Episcopalian laity is pretty gay. The following graph shows the percentages of members of various Christian denominations in the US who are homosexual or bisexual. All data are from 2008--the first year the survey began explicitly asking about sexual orientation--onward (N = 4,901):


Mary, parental unit of Jesus/Jesusa/Them, Z-Man has done it again!

GSS variables used: SEXORNT, DENOM(10-19)(20-29)(30-39)(40-49)(50), OTHER(59-64), RELIG(2)

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Not tired

Speculating on Trumpian tactics is tough. Assuming he has handed over strategic considerations to trusted senior policy adviser Stephen Miller--heaven preserve him--makes things a little easier. Having done so has allowed me to remain--in stark contrast to many titans of the dissident right--consistently optimistic about the administration's handling of DACA specifically, and immigration more generally, over the last several of months.

Steve Sailer explains:
The longer the Democrats talk about immigration, disclosing ever more accurately what’s really on their minds, the better Trump will do with the electorate. Maybe Trump could arrange for some elderly Democratic leader to give, say, an eight-hour speech about Dreamers? Who knows what rationalizations the old Democrat might dredge up?
From that post, a shot of a truly risible NYT editorial:


Dictionary.com does not include "illegal" in the definition of "criminal" nor "criminal" in the definition of "illegal" because doing so would mean using a term to describe itself--the two are synonyms!

If we dispense with the NYT's elegant variation, then, we are able to end the sentence in one of two ways. Either:
... smearing those who come criminally to the US as criminals.
Or:
... smearing those who come illegally to the US as illegals.
This is supposed to be an illustration of how awful the president is!

Give Nancy Pelosi as much rope as possible--eight hours is ample time.

Yes, emphasizing the illegal aspect of immigration just scratches at the surface of what's important, but that's all most people do most of the time when it comes to national affairs. Politics is the art of the possible.

DACA expires in less than a month. At that point 800,000 'dreamers' lose the veneer of legal residency. They become illegal aliens and can be dealt with as such.

In addition to winning on DACA, Trump has also gone a long way to framing the Democrats as the party of non-Americans and--despite their best efforts at self-sabotage--the Republicans as the party of Americans.

On top of that, these last couple months have been quite good for the GOP's mid-term prospects At the beginning of November, Reuters Ipsos polling began mid-term generic congressional ballot tracking. Among registered voters, the Democrat advantage over the four months the poll has been conducted (N = 29,823):


R-I's last poll, two days before the presidential election, put Clinton at +5, 3 points better than her actual performance. Given that "likely voter" polls favor Republicans more than "registered voter" polls do, and that Republicans tend to do better in mid-terms than in general elections, we're being presented with a template of how to win both politically and electorally, while Trump continues to show the way on how to win culturally.

A lot could change the next eight months--particularly if the economy takes a nose dive--but this progress on the National Question is worth celebrating.

Thursday, February 08, 2018

Climb on two by two to be sure these days continue

Dan comments:
In modern life, hedonism and low fertility is a default and it requires some special meaning to rise past that. For most, that meaning is religion.

(Before birth control of course, hedonists were leaving bastards everywhere.)
One of the consequences of modern contraception is the historically unprecedented decoupling of fornication and procreation. More of the former no longer means more of the latter. To the contrary, there is an inverse correlation between notch count and fertility (once the number of partners reaches one, of course!), a trend that is likely accelerating, not attenuating.

The following table shows the mean number of children men and women have had by the total lifetime number of sexual partners of the opposite sex they've had since turning eighteen. All respondents are at least 40 years of age. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are included. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 6,999):


The repercussions of this decoupling are being played out now, the ultimate ramifications yet uncertain.

This probably plays some role in the relative prudishness of Zs and millennials, generational cohorts who are less sexually active and less recklessly promiscuous than Xers and baby boomers were at the same times in their lives.

From the middle of the 20th century onward, Western societies have experienced something novel for to humanity up to this point--men and women with fewer sexual partners having more children than men and women who have more of them. The Golden Horde or the House of Saud the contemporary Occident most certainly is not (yet). This isn't the whole story, but it must be part.

GSS variables used: NUMMEN(1-989), NUMWOMEN(1-989), SEX, RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), CHILDS, AGE(40-89)